Major Defector on Marriage Equality

Joseph Bottums, a conservative Catholic who helped draft the Manhattan Declaration, has defected on the issue of marriage equality in an essay in Commonweal magazine. In that essay, he makes a “Catholic case for same-sex marriage,” but it seems to be more of a pragmatic case than a principled one:

By July 2013, thirteen states had already recognized it, and under any principle of governmental fairness available today, the equities are all on the side of same-sex marriage. There is no coherent jurisprudential argument against it—no principled legal view that can resist it. The Supreme Court more or less punted this June in its marriage cases, Hollingsworth v. Perry and United States v. Windsor, but it was a punt that signaled eventual victory for advocates of same-sex marriage. And by ruling in Windsor that Section 3 of DOMA (the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act) is unconstitutional, the justices made it clear that the court will not stand in the way of the movement’s complete triumph. We are now at the point where, I believe, American Catholics should accept state recognition of same-sex marriage simply because they are Americans.

For that matter, plenty of practical concerns suggest that the bishops should cease to fight the passage of such laws. Campaigns against same-sex marriage are hurting the church, offering the opportunity to make Catholicism a byword for repression in a generation that, even among young Catholics, just doesn’t think that same-sex activity is worth fighting about. There’s a reasonable case to be made that the struggle against abortion is slowly winning, but the fight against public acceptance of same-sex behavior has been utterly lost.

I find these practical considerations compelling, just as I think most ordinary Catholics do. The church in America today is in its weakest public position since agitation about Irish and Italian immigration in the 1870s prompted thirty-eight states to pass anti-Catholic Blaine amendments to their constitutions.

That’s just “we can’t win so there’s no point in fighting” rather than an actual change of mind. But then there are some details about the drafting of the Manhattan Declaration that are quite interesting:

One of the problems with the document was that none of the people on the drafting committee—Chuck himself, Princeton’s Robert P. George, and the very smart Baptist divinity-school dean Timothy George—were primarily writers. They were activists and teachers who happened to write, sometimes (as in Robby George’s 1995 book Making Men Moral) with real skill. But the genuine literary talent behind an entire generation’s set of manifestos had been Richard John Neuhaus—first as a Christian protester against segregation and Vietnam, and then as a Christian neoconservative. And with Richard’s death from cancer earlier in 2009, they had to produce The Manhattan Declaration in his absence.

The result would prove turgid, politically clumsy, and strangely disorganized. Just as there’s a rule in some online discussion groups that you’ve automatically lost an argument if you compare your opponents to the Nazis, so there ought to be a rule in public discourse that you’ve guaranteed your failure if you compare modern America to the decline of Ancient Rome. But that’s how the declaration opened, and as it wandered through its various complaints about the nation, it came to seem more and more a laundry list in search of a thesis: there’s bad stuff out there, people hate us, and it all adds up to, well, a picture—a modern reflection of the moral collapse of Rome from the stern glories of the republic to the satyricon of the empire.

I spoke to Chuck privately about the draft several times, urging him to reorganize it and tone it down, but he was too enamored of the frisson of rebellion in its call for civil disobedience to agree. Finally, at the New York meeting, I got up and announced publicly my unease: The equating of these three concerns is a mistake; not only do the possible negative results of same-sex marriage fail to match the horrors of abortion, but religious freedom isn’t even the same kind of thing. It’s like equating a small weed to a giant sequoia—and then lumping them both together with an umbrella. The entire text needs to be recast, I said. If the document has to threaten civil disobedience, then it ought to be about freedom: religious Americans may accept a culture that recognizes same-sex marriage, but they hereby announce that they will not accept a legal regime that uses same-sex marriage as a wrecking ball with which to knock down every religious building in the public square.

And in response, Maggie Gallagher stood up in that crowded room to call me a coward—or, at least, she declared that any reduction in the status of the fight over same-sex marriage was a counsel of cowardice, born from a fear that same-sex marriage was inevitable. A writer and activist, former president of the National Organization for Marriage, Gallagher has always struck me as a fearless and contrarian figure, and in this case, I think, she was correct.

Oh, not about the law: the legal victory of same-sex marriage actually was inevitable; not a single persuasive legal argument emerged against it in the courts. But right in her accusation of cowardice—although maybe not in quite the way she thought. My worry with The Manhattan Declaration wasn’t about the consequences of defeat, as Gallagher suggested; if something is wrong, you oppose it even though the heavens fall. But cowardice about my own mind, yes: my profamily friends were a strong public-intellectual force opposed to abortion, and I went along with them on same-sex marriage mostly because I lacked the seriousness and strength of mind to work through it for myself. I was just like that young woman journalist I found so insipid and self-righteous for pronouncing uncritically the views of her class.

In the end, my friends…but why should I continue to blame them for my own fault? In the end, I let myself be talked into publishing the (only slightly altered) document, despite my objections—talked into becoming one of the original signers of The Manhattan Declaration myself. It was a mistake, and one I regret.

And then finally — it’s a really long essay — he arrives at a substantive argument in favor of same-sex marriage. Well, kind of. It’s a pretty weak argument:

Some Catholic intellectual figures will continue to explore the deep political-theory meanings manifest in the old forms of Christendom, and more power to them, but the rest of us should turn instead to more effective witness in the culture as it actually exists.

In fact, same-sex marriage might prove a small advance in chastity in a culture that has lost much sense of chastity. Same-sex marriage might prove a small advance in love in a civilization that no longer seems to know what love is for. Same-sex marriage might prove a small advance in the coherence of family life in a society in which the family is dissolving.

I don’t know that it will, of course, and some of the most persuasive statements of conservatism insist that we should not undertake projects the consequences of which we cannot foresee. But same-sex marriage is already here; it’s not as though we can halt it. And other profound statements of conservatism remind us that we must take people as we find them—must instruct the nation where the nation is.

For that matter, the argument about unforeseen consequences is a sword that cuts both ways. Precisely because human social experience has never recognized same-sex marriage on any large scale, we don’t know the extent to which metaphysical meanings—the enchantment of marriage—can be instantiated in same-sex unions. How faithful will they prove? How much infected by the divorce culture of modern America? How spiritual? How mundane? How will they face up to the woe of the quotidian that, as Schopenhauer insisted, marriage forces us to see? How will such unions aid their participants to perceive the joy of creation?

The answer is that we can’t predict the effects of same-sex marriage. I think some good will come, I hope some good will come, but I cannot say with certainty that all must go well with this social change. Still, as the church turns to other and far more pressing ways to re-enchant the world, we’ll have time to find out. And when we are ready to start rebuilding the thick natural law that recognizes the created world as a stage on which the wondrous drama of God’s love is played, we will have the information we need to decide where same-sex marriage belongs in a metaphysically rich, spiritually alive moral order.

To an atheist, of course, this all seems quite silly. And it should. But he is speaking to his fellow Catholics, not to us. And I expect that we will see more and more of this, more anti-equality advocates recognizing the inevitable and finding some way to accommodate same-sex marriage without jettisoning the rest of their beliefs.

Just as there’s a rule in some online discussion groups that you’ve automatically lost an argument if you compare your opponents to the Nazis, so there ought to be a rule in public discourse that you’ve guaranteed your failure if you compare modern America to the decline of Ancient Rome.

Hah! A part of me actually kinda likes this guy.

http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

Looks like the Church is taking the first baby-steps toward pretending they were always in favor of same-sex marriage (and always at war with Eurasia).

Campaigns against same-sex marriage are hurting the church, offering the opportunity to make Catholicism a byword for repression…

Heaven forefend — that would interfere with their actual repressive activities!

One of the problems with the document was that none of the people on the drafting committee—Chuck himself, Princeton’s Robert P. George, and the very smart Baptist divinity-school dean Timothy George—were primarily writers.

So the content was right, but it just looked wrong because it wasn’t well written. Where have I heard that excuse before?

In fact, same-sex marriage might prove a small advance in chastity in a culture that has lost much sense of chastity. Same-sex marriage might prove a small advance in love in a civilization that no longer seems to know what love is for. Same-sex marriage might prove a small advance in the coherence of family life in a society in which the family is dissolving.

Translation: the Catholic Church did a horrible job of teaching people about chastity, love, or family life; so now they’re hoping same-sex marriage can do the teaching they couldn’t do. All in all, that’s a pretty stunning admission of the Church’s total dismal failure as a force for moral leadership.

eric

the argument about unforeseen consequences is a sword that cuts both ways. Precisely because human social experience has never recognized same-sex marriage on any large scale, we don’t know the extent to which metaphysical meanings—the enchantment of marriage—can be instantiated in same-sex unions.

Here you have a classic example of one of the differences between forward-looking science and backward-looking religion. Theologians look at the situation and say: we don’t know, so we shouldn’t do the experiment. In contrast, the scientist says: not knowing is exactly why you do the experiment.

http://polrant@blogspot.com democommie

“One of the problems with the document was that none of the people on the drafting committee—Chuck himself, Princeton’s Robert P. George, and the very smart Baptist divinity-school dean Timothy George—were primarily writers.”

Well, y’look at it that way….The “Final Solution” was written by people who weren’t English Majors, never mind writers. Just sayin’*.

* Sticks thumbs in ears and wiggles fingers in general direction of jamessweet. {;>)

arakasi

Just as there’s a rule in some online discussion groups that you’ve automatically lost an argument if you compare your opponents to the Nazis, so there ought to be a rule in public discourse that you’ve guaranteed your failure if you compare modern America to the decline of Ancient Rome.

Unfortunately, to be consistant, we would have to call this “Bottuming the argument” or a “Bottums”. And that just has unfortunate implications

http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

The answer is that we can’t predict the effects of same-sex marriage…

I went to a straight wedding last weekend, and so far, no sign of gay marriage undermining it. The ceremony started a half-hour late, but I don’t see gayness having any part in that…

Randomfactor

if you compare modern America to the decline of Ancient Rome.

I always thought that was a valid comparison. Christianity seized control of Rome, and the damned thing fell apart.

But, of course, he is incorrect. A lot of the generation that he refers to, and many others, believe it is worth fighting about and for which is one reason why they bigots are becoming more ‘pragmatic”.

D. C. Sessions

And he’s still not getting the point that people were trying to show to the cultural conservatives ten years ago:

You’re not going to stop the clock, but if you can get past the idea of forcing society to do things your way (no exceptions allowed!) then you might be able to negotiate terms that we can all live with. For instance, complete separation of “holy matrimony” and “civil unions.” Which is how it’s done in countries such as Mexico (known for its total lack of piety, that, not to mention hostility to the Catholic Church.)

Crudely Wrott

Still, as the church turns to other and far more pressing ways to re-enchant the world, we’ll have time to find out.

[Max, the dogma mechanic, tips his sweat stained hat back on head, rolls his cigar from one corner of his mouth to the other and points at a key suspension assembly.]

Well, buddy, there’s your problem with your dogma right there. It’s a tough repair, too. See, you gotta use your time wisely so’s you’ll recognize how futile it is to enchant the world in the first place. Let alone try to do it again! And you gotta stop runnin’ this ol’ heap so hard.

[Max grins widely.]

After all, you want it to run forever, right?

Tell you what. Bring it back in a couple of generations and we’ll have another look at it, OK?

[Dogma drives off the lot and fades into a dusty cloud as Max turns around and kicks a pebble that bounces off the hubcap of a Buddhist coupe, vintage fifth century, producing a round, brassy tone. He speaks to no one in particular.]

Geeze. Amazing that some of them old crates are still runnin’.

eric

In that last excerpt he spends four of five paragraphs talking about how we don’t know what will happen.

Evidently, he can’t see Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, or Uruguay from his window.

D. C. Sessions

Evidently, he can’t see Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, or Uruguay from his window.

American Exceptionalism!

ianeymeaney

The question that everyone is forgetting is: will they be allowed to use condoms?

cry4turtles

I can’t help but wonder how many children he’s adopted. When the last unwanted child is in a loving home I might be able to have a conversation with this guy.

http://streetsatnight.blogspot.com Travis

For instance, complete separation of “holy matrimony” and “civil unions.” Which is how it’s done in countries such as Mexico (known for its total lack of piety, that, not to mention hostility to the Catholic Church.)

Are civil marriages in Mexico labelled the same as same sex civil unions? Frankly I think the real solution is to make all legal marriages, that confer legal benefits on the people involved, one thing. Anyone that wants to have this union can get married, or form a civil union, or whatever they want to call it, by going to some government officer and having it done. But what is done in the church should have no bearing on this whatsoever. The ceremony done in a church should be something people do because their religion demands it, something that they perhaps do for their friends and family, or because they want to do it, but it should have no connection to any legal union. It is a religious ceremony, it is like being baptised or conformation.

F [is for failure to emerge]

Turgid. Yep, that about sums it up.

D. C. Sessions

Travis: yes. Same as in France and much of Europe.

John Pieret

That’s just “we can’t win so there’s no point in fighting” rather than an actual change of mind.

Well, I think it is a bit more than that. He’s recognizing that the maintenance of supposed “principle” in the face of general acceptance that the “principle” is discriminatory and unwarranted actually hurts the people who claim to be acting in a principled manner because it’s obvious that they’re not.

The other point I’d give him is that, among wingnuts (and near wingnuts), he displays the rare quality of recognizing at least parts of reality.

dingojack

cry4turtles (#14) – you want more foxes to take charge of hen-houses?!?

Dingo

francesc

“…but it seems to be more of a pragmatic case than a principled one”

To be fair, I think that’s the only good trait of the catholic church, their principles -and forgiveness- are pretty much a commodity you can buy or sell.

“There’s a reasonable case to be made that the struggle against abortion is slowly winning”

On the contrary, self-delusion is pretty essential for any religious sect

cry4turtles

No Dingo, I really don’t. Every day on my job I see children who have been adopted or are fostered by xians. The indoctrination is rampant, but I know these children are loved and cared for minus the entrapment of their minds. It has to be an improvement over orphanages in China or life with drug addled parents with a history of abuse or neglect. It’s a rock between a hard place.

dingojack

cry4turtles (#21) – You do realise I wasn’t being entirely serious, right?

But still, you place them in a ‘nice’ house, with a ‘nice’ family and once they are old enough their parents send them to a religious school and a church. Twenty years later they end up wondering why they became suddenly really anti-social and withdrawn when they hit puberty, and morn the loss of the ‘nice’ child they trained to drugs, violence, jail or the like*.

Dingo

——-

* sorry, but I’ve just been watching Mea Culpa: Silence in the House of God

dougtaron

@20- ““There’s a reasonable case to be made that the struggle against abortion is slowly winning”

On the contrary, self-delusion is pretty essential for any religious sect”

Until recently, the abortion and marriage equality issues seemed to be playing out in a very similar fashion. Lately, progress on marriage equality has been almost breathtaking. The abortion issue still feels like trench warfare. I suspect that the statement that you are responding to was as much whistling past the graveyard as anything. When you are losing this badly on marriage equality, a stalemate on abortion may well feel like a win by comparison.